Imagine claiming war on humanity's being waged for peace. Imagine mass slaughter called humanitarian intervention.

Imagine the worst of all possible outcomes. Imagine a brave new world impossible to live in.

Imagine turning it to rubble. Imagine doing so for global dominance. Imagine mass opposition failing to stop Obama. Imagine collapse of enough of international support to give him pause.

Imagine not enough to prevent bombs away. After Obama returns from G20 talks, they could ravage Syria any time. They could do so with or without Security Council and congressional authorization.

Stopping Obama matters most. Drawing a universal red line is essential. Millions against war worldwide need to act. Lawless aggression can't be tolerated. Now's the time to stop it. Later may be too late.

Russia and China forthrightly oppose war. President of the European Council Herman van Rompuy says world leaders must seek a political solution.

From St. Petersburg, he said:

"There is no military solution to the Syrian conflict, only a political (one) can end the terrible bloodshed, great violations of human rights and a far-reaching destruction of Syria."

President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso called the situation "a stain on the world's conscience."

"The European Union believes that efforts should be evolved towards a political solution to the conflict," he added.

"Confronted with similar acts one cannot remain silent, and the Holy See hopes that the competent institutions make clear what happened and that those responsible face justice," he said.

He called for peaceful dialogue. He urged not letting Syria be split along ethnic and/or religious lines.

On Wednesday, Francis Jesuit order head Rev. Adolfo Nicolas called impending US/French military action an "abuse of power."

"I cannot understand who gave the United States or France the right to act against a country in a way that will certainly increase the suffering of the citizens of that country, who, by the way, have already suffered beyond measure," he said.

Congress may violate international law. The Security Council alone decides on war or peace issues. Circumventing its authority is illegal.

Rep. Vern Buchanan, (R. FL) said calls and emails to his office are 600 to 9 against striking Syria.

Rep. Rand Paul, (R. KY) said:

"I'm told the phone calls are 9 out of 10 against a strike in Syria, from my constituents in Kentucky."

Rep. Ralph Hall, (R. TX) said:

"I have received hundreds of calls and letters from constituents expressing strong opposition."

"Rep. Michele Bachmann, (R. MN) tweeted:

"My office has been inundated with constituent phone calls and emails about Syria. Virtually unanimous opposition to military intervention."

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, (R. UT) tweeted:

"So far about 500 emails regarding Syria. 499 say NO and 1 says YES go to war" and "hundreds of calls to our Provo and Washington, DC office. So far not a single call in favor of bombing Syria."

"Rep. Paul Gosar, (R. AZ) tweeted:

"The phones in my office are ringing off the hook and mail is flowing in. Almost all the people are opposed to intervention in Syria."

Numerous other congressional members reported the same thing. Americans oppose attacking Syria. They do so overwhelmingly.

It remains to be seen how Congress will vote when it reconvenes. What looked rubber-stamp at first appears uncertain.

On September 6, the Tripoli Post headlined "Congress Heading to Vote 'No' on Syria Strike," saying:

Obama's "heading to a stunning defeat on his sought after congressional authorization for a military attack against Syria after many congressmen have learned that any action against Syria even if its ‘limited’ will definitely drag the US to a quagmire."

"According to data compiled by ThinkProgress, 217 House representatives have either decisively ruled out support to an attack on Syria or say they are unlikely to back it. A rejection of the Obama request for authorization to act against Syria requires only 217 votes to pass."

"Only 44 congressmen said they would definitely or likely to vote for a strike against Syria. The numbers are based on analysis of public statements of 407 Representatives."

"Within less than 24 hours, thirty congressmen confirmed publicly on Thursday that they would vote against the attack on Syria, while only four representatives announced that they would vote 'yes.' "

"It is very possible that the classified briefing by the Obama administration to members of the US Congress that took place on Wednesday about the attack on Syria had turned off the lawmakers who found the consequence of any attack could very well turn into a catastrophe for America."

"Thus, after much thought, deliberation and prayer, I am no longer convinced that a US strike on Syria will yield a benefit to the United States that will not be greatly outweighed by the extreme cost of war," he said.

"The relentless march to war is replete with demonization, self-righteous arrogance and bullying. The risk of committing war crimes on the civilian populations is high."

"We remember well the dissembling Colin Powell’s performance. We oppose all efforts to launch an attack on Syria based on flimsy evidence and political bombast."

"As long as the brutal tools of war are used to carry fear-filled olive branches, the US will lose. There is no strategic or tactical or moral benefit to the United States for bombing Syria."

"For with all the shock and awe and terror and fear inevitably comes loathing. Bombing an already chaotic situation is only a prescription for disaster and more loathing, much more."

"There is also the enormous risk of causing a vastly wider conflict. We refuse to accept another political adventure into the same carnage of war under the same tired misrepresentations and false-flag patriotism."

"We spoke out for the innocent victims of the Iraq war and today we speak for all the innocent Syrian victims past and perhaps to come."

"In all aspects, bombing Syria is exactly the wrong thing to do. Now is the time for dialogue not dynamite."

US history reflects unconscionable crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are America's most recent great crimes.

Syria's the latest. It's being ravaged and destroyed. Direct US intervention will do it entirely.

Viktor Ozerov chairs Russia's Upper House of Parliament (the Federation Council of Russia). He heads its Defense and Security Committee. He forthrightly said:

"If we recognize the supremacy of international law and sovereignty of UN member states, the start of the US military actions against Syria bypassing the UN Security Council could only mean one thing, another American aggression against an Arab state."

"The aftermath of the US aggressive operations are still fresh in our memory; Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya."

"The list could be extended. No arguments can be accepted here in defense of democracy or human rights."

"What is really happening is that Washington cannot agree that countries exist that do not dance to its tune or play by its rules."

Stop NATO editor Rick Rozoff was clear and unequivocal. The "gravity of the situation" is clear, he said.

"(T)he world needs to be able to marshal all the resources it has; information, organization, moral resources, in order to combat the threat of a war against Syria, which could quite entirely possibly expand into something not only a regional conflict or conflagration, but into something that could be a global showdown."

"(W)orld public opinion has to tell Washington, both the legislative and executive branch: 'No war! It's against the law internationally! It's a moral crime! And it's an historic crime that will be judged in that manner and its perpetrators will be held accountable!"

Emergency conditions exist. Opposing war on Syria is crucial. Do it now. Stopping Obama matters most. The alternative is too potentially catastrophic to risk.